INTRODUCTION. 8l 
thus early an object of deep felt interest, we are 
naturally led to ask the question of whence dogs 
originated? For, as there must have been a period 
when that species, or the genus whence the domestic 
races have sprung, were in a state of nature, the 
original and typical kind is to be sought in existing 
wild dogs, or their real progenitors have totally dis- 
appeared. In the present state of our knowledge 
on this particular subject, no reply can be made 
which is wholly free from objections. The oldest 
records represent the dogs then noticed, though they 
were less educated, as not very dissimilar in natural 
qualities from the present races; for, referring to 
the most ancient authorities (if we except a passage 
in Aristotle attesting the co-existence of wild and 
domesticated animals in his time in Europe, among 
which the dog is enumerated,—and another in Pliny, 
acknowledging that there were no domesticated ani- 
mals then to be found which had not their counter- 
parts in a wild state),* writers of the classic period 
seem not to have bestowed much real attention on 
the question.{ Linneus, in his system, justly 
designating fitness, capacity, and power, with God, goodness, 
and dog. In this view, Nabach, or Nabass, would not be a 
true Semitic name, but a northern epithet signifying the 
watch-dog or barker-after. The Hebrew, indeed, has many 
other words that appear of foreign or Scythic origin; 731)7, 
Haunsbeak, or Anubis, is the more true Semitic term for 
barker. 
* In omnibus animalibus placidum eiusdem invenitur et 
ferum.—PLIny. 
~ What may be thought of the afcient opinions in Aris- 
VOL. I. F 
